{"id":4106,"date":"2011-01-11T11:07:56","date_gmt":"2010-04-26T08:02:01","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-04-26T08:02:01","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4106","title":{"rendered":"OH8: Officer opening a screen door and entering to ask questions was an unreasonable entry"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Police officer went to the door of a \u201cboot joint\u201d (bootleg house) with a screen door and the inside door was open. The officer opened the screen door and stepped on the threshold and asked \u201cIs this a boot joint?\u201d They said yes, and he came in. This was an entry without exigent circumstances. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/2\/2010\/2010-ohio-1790.pdf\">State v. Johnson<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 1790, 187 Ohio App. 3d 322, 931 N.E.2d 1162 (2d Dist. 2010)*:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[*P17]  Officer Beall&#8217;s conduct in opening the screen door of the apartment and stepping into the open doorway to present himself to those inside constituted an unlawful warrantless entry onto those premises. The admission he then procured from Defendant that the premises was a boot joint is subject to suppression as fruit of the poisonous tree. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920), 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed.2d 319. That scenario likewise operated to create the purported need to enter the apartment to secure evidence inside. It is on that need that the State relies to argue that the entry was authorized by the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. However, police by their own conduct cannot create an exigency and then enter a premises to prevent destruction of evidence. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Defendant\u2019s furtive movements were sufficient to warrant his frisk, so defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the search. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/8\/2010\/2010-ohio-1749.pdf\">State v. Pope<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 1749, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 1458 (8th Dist. April 22, 2010).*<\/p>\n<p>The argument defendant raises on appeal was not the one raised in the trial court, so the issue is not preserved for review. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/8\/2010\/2010-ohio-1745.pdf\">State v. Holmes<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 1745, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 1460 (8th Dist. April 22, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4106\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4106","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}